Difference between revisions of "Talk:Silacoid"

From UFOpaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Weapon Rankings Vs Silacoids: extra note on firimg mode)
 
(8 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 9: Line 9:
 
NB you don't really want to kill Silacoids, you want to use them for reaction fire and target practice, using Snap or Aimed fire with AC-Incendiary rounds that don't harm them at all. Or you could use Pistols - on average it will take nearly 2,000 soldier x turns of firing before the Silacoid is put out of its misery by Pistol fire. You'll almost certainly run out of ammo before then.  
 
NB you don't really want to kill Silacoids, you want to use them for reaction fire and target practice, using Snap or Aimed fire with AC-Incendiary rounds that don't harm them at all. Or you could use Pistols - on average it will take nearly 2,000 soldier x turns of firing before the Silacoid is put out of its misery by Pistol fire. You'll almost certainly run out of ammo before then.  
  
  Blast Bmb 46
+
  Blast Bmb       46
  HE Pack(XCU) 70
+
  HE Pack(XCU)   70
  HvyPlas 76
+
  HvyPlas         76
  PlasmaR 132
+
  PlasmaR       132
  HE Pack 132
+
  HE Pack       132
  HvyLas (XCU) 133
+
  HvyLas (XCU)   133
  Stun Rod 139
+
  Stun Rod       139
  Alien Grd 164
+
  Alien Grd     164
  RocketLg 165
+
  RocketLg       165
  AC - HE 201
+
  AC - HE       201
  Prox Grd 217
+
  Prox Grd       217
  HC - HE 218
+
  HC - HE       218
  RocketSm 227
+
  RocketSm       227
  Stun Bmb 258
+
  Stun Bmb       258
  LaserR         275
+
  LaserR        275
  Grenade 319
+
  Grenade       319
  PlasmaP 325
+
  PlasmaP       325
  HvyLas         355
+
  HvyLas        355
  LaserP         708
+
  LaserP        708
  HC - AP 731
+
  HC - AP       731
  AC - AP 1381
+
  AC - AP       1381
  Rifle         9120
+
  Rifle        9120
  Pistol       177840
+
  Pistol     177840
  
 
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 21:21, 27 February 2009 (CST)
 
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 21:21, 27 February 2009 (CST)
 +
 +
----
  
 
:Very cool, Spike! Can you say more about your modelling or method? All explosives are presumed to be at ground zero, yes?
 
:Very cool, Spike! Can you say more about your modelling or method? All explosives are presumed to be at ground zero, yes?
Line 41: Line 43:
 
:P.S. There's no telling what wikis or browsers will do with Tab characters - suggest using spaces instead.
 
:P.S. There's no telling what wikis or browsers will do with Tab characters - suggest using spaces instead.
  
Thanks Mike. Yes sorry I should've put a description. In a nutshell, I figure out the average armour-adjusted damage per direct hit (average of min + max, adjusted for % of range that is zero), then multiply that by the average # of direct hits per 100% TUs (assuming Firing Accuracy = 50). I then divide the target Health by the resulting value, to obtain the "%TUs per kill".
+
Thanks Mike. Yes sorry I should've put a description.  
 +
 
 +
Description of the model used for Weapon Rankings has been moved to here:
 +
 
 +
[[User:Spike#Tactical_Firepower_Model|Model Description]]
 +
 
 +
:Nice! I really like how you used % TUs for FA 50 - it's easier for seeing what will take a target down faster (or slower) than [[Kill_Modelling|my]] stuff. I should've revisited my model to post results for when you ''want'' to kill something (not train experience), but I doubt I'll ever get around to it (sigh). That's a lot of work, in your spreadsheet... how did you handle the issue of whether front, side, or rear armor was hit? (for non-explosives)
  
If your soldiers have a better average FA, it all scales linearly. So if you have FA=100 just cut (improve) the values by half. I picked FA=50 as its a typical starting value, and it was particularly the starting weapons I was interested in.
+
:-[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 18:19, 2 March 2009 (CST)
  
I tried lots of different "figures of merit" for weapons but I like this one best.  
+
Thank you! For armour facing for direct fire weapons, I just use the worst case - front armour. I wondered long and hard if I should use the 'modal' value which would probably be side armour. Without producing 3-4 sets of stats, there's no easy answer. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 19:14, 2 March 2009 (CST)
  
Yes all HE is a direct hit. For 4-square targets I add the reduced, armour-adjusted damage on the other 3 squares.
+
:Nods... sounds like the best assumption to me, for simplicity's sake. One could've tried a bunch of modeled results from various sides along the lines of what I did, but it has the disadvantages that 1) it'd be arbitrary and challenging to decide how the facings are (randomly) hit, 2) the results are little less straightforward to understand (simlicity is a virtue), while 3) of course, it'd be a lot more work. Front armor is fine... sort of a worst case scenario, while at the same time, the most important time to know how good your guns are (while the target is facing you and may fire back). -[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 17:53, 3 March 2009 (CST)
  
The very low (good) average values, such as for Heavy Plasma, will be very volatile around the average. The high (bad) numbers will be more consistent.
+
== Their true purpose ==
  
This Figure of Merit probably works best when the number is in the range 25% - 75%. Below that level, there is high volatilty and also I may not have accounted for overkill (minimum penetrating damage > Health) properly. Above that level, I have not accounted for reload time, nor "turn rounding errors" - such as: you can't burst-fire an AC 2.5 times a turn, you can only burst-fire it twice.
+
Very few people know this, but the Silacoid wasn't originally designed as a weapon. The hungry aliens (especially the meat-loving Mutons) wanted to bring a ''portable barbecue'' on their Harvester missions. See also [[Mutton]]. :) --[[User:JellyfishGreen|JellyfishGreen]] 06:42, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
  
Another thing to note about this metric is that it is accuracy-weighted, so it assumes a non-trivial "firing problem". For situations such as point-blank where accuracy is not an issue, the rankings will be very different. I'll work on a different metric for point-blank.  
+
But due to clerical error, Silacoids don't get to attend barbecue... i mean Harvester missions. .. [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 08:31, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
  
Tomorrow I will upload the latest version of my Firepower spreadsheet, which generated these rankings. It allows you to toggle the "turn rounding" on or off. It would also be good to have others check my assumptions!
+
Ever wonder if the seemingly harmless Silacoids are the ''real'' power behind the invasion? Controlling Ethereals with the smell of delicious steak? Don't know if this is bad form but FIRST EDIT. --[[User:Cadmus|Cadmus]] 19:12, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
  
One more point: the number given is for whichever firing mode (auto, snap or aimed) gives the highest value. I should probably list what the best mode is!
+
Er, wait... suddenly occured to me. Do the silacoids serve as barbecue or Hot Plate style cooking? I mean... it's cooking meat on hot stone surface, right? [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 20:14, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
  
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 22:22, 27 February 2009 (CST)
+
*Two fold actually: harvesting of all minerals and alloys in the area and to consume all humans and wildlife. Since the mutons are so good at killing, these things are their ground holders

Latest revision as of 03:59, 23 September 2009

how do you get these things to attack while mind-controlled? same with chryssilaids?--(name here) 20:01, 23 December 2007 (PST)

Aside from exploiting a programming oversight, you can't. This means that Mind Control on Silacoids is limited mainly to using them as scouts or fire decoys. Same with Chryssalids, but given the high threat posed by the Chryssalid, mind controlling them is valuable in and of itself because it makes them non-dangerous; the Silacoid isn't that dangerous to begin with. Arrow Quivershaft 20:23, 23 December 2007 (PST)

Weapon Rankings Vs Silacoids

%TUs per kill (average; FA=50).

NB you don't really want to kill Silacoids, you want to use them for reaction fire and target practice, using Snap or Aimed fire with AC-Incendiary rounds that don't harm them at all. Or you could use Pistols - on average it will take nearly 2,000 soldier x turns of firing before the Silacoid is put out of its misery by Pistol fire. You'll almost certainly run out of ammo before then.

Blast Bmb       46
HE Pack(XCU)    70
HvyPlas         76
PlasmaR        132
HE Pack        132
HvyLas (XCU)   133
Stun Rod       139
Alien Grd      164
RocketLg       165
AC - HE        201
Prox Grd       217
HC - HE        218
RocketSm       227
Stun Bmb       258
LaserR         275
Grenade        319
PlasmaP        325
HvyLas         355
LaserP         708
HC - AP        731
AC - AP       1381
Rifle         9120
Pistol      177840

Spike 21:21, 27 February 2009 (CST)


Very cool, Spike! Can you say more about your modelling or method? All explosives are presumed to be at ground zero, yes?
Very cool! - MikeTheRed 21:44, 27 February 2009 (CST)
P.S. There's no telling what wikis or browsers will do with Tab characters - suggest using spaces instead.

Thanks Mike. Yes sorry I should've put a description.

Description of the model used for Weapon Rankings has been moved to here:

Model Description

Nice! I really like how you used % TUs for FA 50 - it's easier for seeing what will take a target down faster (or slower) than my stuff. I should've revisited my model to post results for when you want to kill something (not train experience), but I doubt I'll ever get around to it (sigh). That's a lot of work, in your spreadsheet... how did you handle the issue of whether front, side, or rear armor was hit? (for non-explosives)
-MikeTheRed 18:19, 2 March 2009 (CST)

Thank you! For armour facing for direct fire weapons, I just use the worst case - front armour. I wondered long and hard if I should use the 'modal' value which would probably be side armour. Without producing 3-4 sets of stats, there's no easy answer. Spike 19:14, 2 March 2009 (CST)

Nods... sounds like the best assumption to me, for simplicity's sake. One could've tried a bunch of modeled results from various sides along the lines of what I did, but it has the disadvantages that 1) it'd be arbitrary and challenging to decide how the facings are (randomly) hit, 2) the results are little less straightforward to understand (simlicity is a virtue), while 3) of course, it'd be a lot more work. Front armor is fine... sort of a worst case scenario, while at the same time, the most important time to know how good your guns are (while the target is facing you and may fire back). -MikeTheRed 17:53, 3 March 2009 (CST)

Their true purpose

Very few people know this, but the Silacoid wasn't originally designed as a weapon. The hungry aliens (especially the meat-loving Mutons) wanted to bring a portable barbecue on their Harvester missions. See also Mutton. :) --JellyfishGreen 06:42, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

But due to clerical error, Silacoids don't get to attend barbecue... i mean Harvester missions. .. Jasonred 08:31, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Ever wonder if the seemingly harmless Silacoids are the real power behind the invasion? Controlling Ethereals with the smell of delicious steak? Don't know if this is bad form but FIRST EDIT. --Cadmus 19:12, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Er, wait... suddenly occured to me. Do the silacoids serve as barbecue or Hot Plate style cooking? I mean... it's cooking meat on hot stone surface, right? Jasonred 20:14, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

  • Two fold actually: harvesting of all minerals and alloys in the area and to consume all humans and wildlife. Since the mutons are so good at killing, these things are their ground holders